Dear Richard Dawkins

No, not God, this time. You've done God to death. I want to complain about your disgraceful Tweet (if that's what it's called. I don't do Twitter) about Downs Syndrome babies. Let me remind you of what you said, apropos an unborn Downs baby: "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have a choice."

Why, Richard (if I may call you Richard)? Why immoral? If that baby is wanted, despite its condition, and if the parents are prepared to take it on, who are you to tell them they are being immoral? Are you God (if you'll excuse the term)? Have you ever met a Downs child (or adult)? Do you have any idea of some of the joy and love they can bring?

Let me tell you about Derica. When I met her, she was in her late teens; a regular patient at the surgery where I was practice nurse. She was a much-loved member of her family. Cheerful, friendly, brave (she never made a fuss about her blood tests the way many 'normal' people do), and happy. Yes, Richard. She was happy. And when her grandmother was burgled, at knifepoint, in her own little flat (imagine how that must have felt, if you can), it was Derica who slept in her Grandmother's bed with her for night after night afterwards, to hold her and comfort her.

Sadly, Derica died not long afterwards (so she didn't take up planet-space for too long, you'll be relieved to hear), and her family were all devastated. Because Derica knew how to love, how to care, how to give; in fact,  how to be a thoroughly good  human being.

We had many patients at that surgery, but it was Derica who stood out for me. Not because she had Downs, but because she was a very special young woman.

I wish you could have met her.

For a really fun Daddy, try...

...Richard Dawkins. That's right. The anti-God one, who's spent his life trying to debunk any kind of religious belief.

Well, in case you hadn't heard, he's now started on Father Christmas. Not only poor FC, but also, fairy tales; in fact, any story that can't be scientific fact. Thus, rather pompously, he says "there's a very interesting reason why a prince could not turn into a frog" (actually, Steve, it's the other way round. You need to read the book). "It's statistically too improbable". (Since we're being pedantic here, I'd have used the word 'impossible'. But perhaps he knows something  I don't.)

Well, that's almost  every children's book from Peter Rabbit to Harry Potter dismissed. Masterpieces like The Wind in the Willows*, Winnie the Pooh, the Gruffalo...all misleading and therefore bad for children.

I can see Professor Dawkins, Dawkins junior on his knee, reading aloud a condensed version of War and Peace. Or perhaps David Copperfield. That must have been a laugh.

And what about those imaginary friends beloved of children? What did his children do with lost teeth? Bin them? Examine them under a microscope and make notes on their findings? Were  they allowed to go to fancy dress parties ("no, dear, you can't go as a fairy, because there's no such thing")?

I don't mind the good prof having a go at God. God's used to it. But I think he should leave the kids alone, and let them enjoy their imaginations while they still have the time.

*Oddly, it didn't occur to me until I was almost adult that a toad leading a cart horse or wearing a washerwoman's clothes was (to use Dawkins' word) improbable.